What if Korea collects much bigger taxes and delivers on all free welfare promises made by the government and the rival political parties without fail? Can Korea make a genuine welfare state like some in Northern Europe?

It won't take long before the sweet taste of a welfare state turns into a nightmare, and the nation might have to pay the price harshly.

First and foremost, corporate investment would weaken significantly in the midst of a heavier tax burden at a time when a combination of the weaker yen, global economic slump and entrenched low growth weighs on the economy heavily. The rich, faced with higher income tax rates, might seek to dodge taxes and leave the country in droves with their wealth.

Consumption could go up temporarily, buoyed by low-income earners' spending thanks to the state's various welfare programs, but this wouldn't last long. On the contrary, people will find it more difficult to look for jobs amid shrinking corporate activity, which would in turn cause consumer spending to dwindle in the long run. In the worst case, the economy might teeter on the brink of collapse.

This hypothetical situation may be a testament that it's not easy to opt for tax hikes as a means to expand the country's welfare benefits even as the ruling and opposition parties fiercely engage in a familiar dispute over welfare policies. Their tit-for-tat began with a controversy over free school lunch programs and heated up over free childcare programs. Now they are bickering over the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy's improvised proposal to provide newlyweds with rental apartments.

But given our economic circumstances, all these seem to be empty political slogans aimed at taking the initiative in our confrontational political culture.

It's no secret that Korea's welfare spending is still not enough by international standards. The percentage of GDP devoted to welfare in Korea remains at about 9 percent, less than half the OECD average of 21 percent. And Korea's tax burden is also estimated to be below the OECD average.

Given this, it appears good to provide welfare benefits for all people by raising more taxes, but we know how difficult tax hikes are. This difficulty is all the more apparent, considering the current economic malaise. A case in point is Japan, which fell into recession in the third quarter partly as a consequence of raising its sales tax rate to 8 percent on April 1. So raising taxes can't be an immediate option for the ruling camp, which has no other choice but to dedicate itself to leading the sagging economy out of slump.

Then the debate on welfare should start on the assumption that financial resources are limited, and this raises the need to put the brakes on the spread of universal welfare policies. Just a few years ago, in Korea, health insurance was actually the only universal welfare policy, but the liberal opposition camp triggered a race for free welfare by pledging to offer free meals for all elementary and middle school students ahead of the 2010 local elections.

In a major turnabout from their support for selective welfare, President Park Geun-hye and the governing Saenuri Party poured out free welfare pledges, including free childcare, in the lead up to the general and presidential elections in 2012. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that all these were populist pledges made hastily only for election victory, although universal welfare admittedly helps enhance social solidarity.

What's most problematic with universal welfare is that providing welfare benefits for all people regardless of income and wealth requires a huge budget. For example, about 2.6 trillion won is needed this year alone to prop up the free school lunch programs, and this figure is more than four times bigger than the 560 billion won spent in 2010. It's no wonder that the National Assembly Budget Office expects the budget for free education to surge 16 percent per year for a considerable time.

Most pitiable behind the latest welfare craze is that there are as many as 1.17 million impoverished people who are unable to receive state subsidies only because they have children _ whether they are financially capable or not. We are at a loss for words to hear that schools can't afford to fix worn-out facilities due to a tight budget as a result of free school meals which are offered in only a few welfare states.

It's long past time for Korea to stop its futile experiment with free welfare and negotiate a fair solution. What's encouraging is that the main parties don't need to feel the burden for their retreat from the array of sugar-coated welfare pledges because a recent survey by Korea Gallup showed that 66 percent of respondents supported the selective provision of school lunches.

Last week Rep. Lee One-koo, the ruling party's floor leader, offered an apology for the ''free welfare shower'' ahead of previous elections and called for joint efforts by the central and local governments as well as education offices to restructure welfare programs.

To be sure, the key to the free welfare gridlock lies with his remarks. Let children from rich families pay for school lunches and preschool expenses.